Re: [IPFIX] FW: CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element

["Aitken, Paul" <[e-mail]>]

As a co-author of many of the IPFIX RFCs, expert reviewer for IANA, and author of IPFIX code, I disagree with the premise that the current tcpControlBits definition is problematic for interoperability because some values have since been deprecated.

Rather, the interoperability risk is in making non backwards compatible changes to the existing definition.

Since IANA has changed bit 7 from Nonce Sum to "Reserved for future use" rather than deprecating it, a time will come when it's allocated for a future purpose. This will guarantee non-interoperability since new IPFIX devices will export the bit with a different meaning than existing / old devices.

There may be many devices in the field which cannot be found or updated which will continue to export the existing tcpControlBits definition. It's impossible to guarantee that all such devices have been updated or removed. And all existing IPFIX code libraries must be updated.

If we want to put IPFIX's tcpControlBits under IANA's control with an IPFIX Information Element which follows IANA's TCP Header Flags specification, then a new Information Element should be allocated. However this seems dangerous since the same could happen again: an in-use bit could be marked as "Reserved" then re-allocated for a different purpose, and we'd have non-interoperable IPFIX devices.

TLDR: this document should not be adopted.

P.


On 19/01/2023 16:53, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
Forwarding to ipfix@ for more eyes on this.  Please reply to opsawg@ with any comments or questions.

Joe

From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=[e-mail]><mailto:jclarke=[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 11:24
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element
Happy new year, all.  One of the AIs that slipped through the cracks coming out of 115 was a call for adoption for draft-boucadair-opsawg-rfc7125-update.   One of the asks of Med at 115 was to look at what else might need to be done from an IE registry standpoint.  He replied on-list to that a while ago:

“Yes, I had a discussion with Benoît during the IETF meeting to see how to handle this. We agreed to proceed with at least two documents:

·         draft-boucadair-opsawg-rfc7125-update to update the TCP IPFIX RFC.

·         Edit a second draft to “clean” other entries in registry. This document is intended to include only simple fixes and which do not require updating existing RFCs. The candidate list of these proposed fixes can be seen at https://boucadair.github.io/simple-ipfix-fixes/draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.html [boucadair.github.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://boucadair.github.io/simple-ipfix-fixes/draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.html__;!!OSsGDw!LkWh3arGpjhY0BhtBQQEOpjN2jc6-afzgtS4ayYuPzwMArRuEkQ2oQm0fbyN9Ahsfr7VDwsr4wHSm8sseJONI6J3rDFp$>. New IEs, if needed, will be moved to a separate document. simple-ipfix-fixes may or may not be published as an RFC.”

So, let this serve as a two-week call for adoption for the existing draft-boucadair-opsawg-rfc7125-update document.  Please reply on-list with your comments, support, or dissent by January 31, 2023.

Thanks.

Joe



_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix__;!!OSsGDw!LkWh3arGpjhY0BhtBQQEOpjN2jc6-afzgtS4ayYuPzwMArRuEkQ2oQm0fbyN9Ahsfr7VDwsr4wHSm8sseJONI1lLXvEo$ [ietf[.]org]